Meeting Details

The Committee received report ES/2556 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/4253/FUL. The Assistant Planning Officer gave a presentation and explained that the application decision was deferred at the September Planning South Committee meeting to allow a site visit to take place. The site visit took place on 21 October 2025. The Assistant Planning Officer ran through the objections from the Parish Council and showed a map of the parish boundaries of Grundisburgh and Otley. A map detailing the speed limits of the roads surrounding the application site was shown together with photographs of the site, including the sign indicating Charity Lane was unsuitable for HGV vehicles. The existing and proposed block plans of the site were shown and she highlighted the small increase of hard standing and the proposed drainage plan. Plans of the entrance and exit to the site were shown and the placement of the bollard at the exit to prevent entry and only allow vehicles to exit right onto Charity Lane. The proposal was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Councillor Hedgley asked if the no left turn at the exit onto Charity Lane was enforceable. The Planning Manager explained it was a condition of the scheme but this could be answered by the Highways officer.

Councillor Reeves asked if the HGVs would be driven off the site by a qualified driver at first to a main road and then transfer to a student. The Assistant Planning Officer said this information had not been provided. 

The Objector was invited to speak. He explained he lived on Charity Lane and drove past the site in large vehicles. He showed photos of the road and pointed out that in one of them you couldn’t see the HGV in the picture that was turning onto the lane. He said cars travelled in the middle of the road and this was a nice country lane, not a major road. He highlighted the line from a letter from Highways, submitted as part of the application, regarding the register of complaints and register of actions to be taken. He felt this looked like there were issues. He then showed the speed order reduction which talked about the increase in traffic. He believed this proposal was highly risky and reckless. He objected and the application should be withdrawn.

There were no questions for the Objector.

Councillor Bowers from Otley Parish Council was invited to speak. He supported the Objector’s comments and illustrated his objection with photographs. He explained it was 40mph coming down to a give way where it then became a 60mph road. There was not enough room on the left hand side, where lorries have to turn, without blocking the road and going onto the verge. He showed pictures of two HGVs on the B1079 that could not pass each other and said it was impossible to have even a car passing a lorry. He said Charity Lane was used as a rat run and it was not suitable for HGVs. He believed it was absurd to allow this application to go through. He acknowledged that the college does a great job but the Parish Council doesn’t support this. He questioned the SCC Highways view on the application.

Councillor Smithson asked if the Parish Council had done a survey on the number of lorries travelling along this road. Councillor Bowers said they were waiting for County Councillor Elaine Bryce and Patrick Spencer MP to attend their meeting. No improvements to highways have been made and they haven’t done a survey.

Councillor Thompson said the college was preparing the students for everything. He felt this could be an ideal training place as the trainer can give students advice about these situations. Councillor Bowers disagreed.

Councillor McCallum asked for clarity about the meeting taking place with Elaine Bryce and Patrick Spencer and if it was about Sizewell C (SZC). Councillor Bowers confirmed it was about safety on the B1078 and B1079 and related to the quarry, the college and SZC.

The Applicant was invited to speak. She said they had reflected on the discussions at the last meeting and changes to the traffic management statement had been provided. She explained that this campus at Otley was now vibrant and this offering was important and that it was imperative we focus provision on what was needed most. There were positives and negatives as a result of large infrastructure projects and it is known that it will be hard to find lorry and bus drivers with SZC coming. Offering HGV courses now will help the situation as we need to have drivers for local busses and companies. The College was planning ahead and they have accessed funding to focus on the low paid/unemployed. Although it won’t be significant numbers of people trained it will have an impact. She assured Members that they would have close scrutiny of what was going on and would adhere to conditions such as no left turn onto Charity Lane in order to protect villagers. The routes will move away from small roads. She pointed out that the dwellings on Charity Lane are owned by the college and inhabited by college staff. She explained that the driving instructors would drive vehicles out of the college until they are confident that the students are capable enough to do it themselves. She pointed out that main roads can have learners on them at any time and they could currently have as many horse boxes and tractors coming out of the site at any time. She noted that visibility would be improved as a result of the application.

Councillor McCallum noted there were other facilities in the area such as Debach that were suitable. She asked if the College had considering doing the driving at another site. The Applicant said there was infrastructure available on site that you wouldn’t get offsite, such as catering, management and administration; it would be too much of a burden to do this provision off site. Councillor McCallum asked how long the lessons were. The Applicant explained they were 2-hour sessions in the vehicles and then classroom sessions. Councillor McCallum asked why this couldn’t be split between two venues. The Applicant said it was not possible as it wouldn’t maximise the benefits and it would not be a good use of public money.

Councillor Reeves asked about the updated traffic management statement as he felt it would be useful to know what was included. The Planning Manager explained it was received late Friday afternoon so was reluctant to include as it could prejudice and the recommendation to approve was based on information already received. He would have liked to see the information shared but members of the community have a right to respond but it was received too late.

Councillor Hedgley asked how the project was financed. The Applicant explained it was through grant funding from SZC and East Suffolk Council.

Councillor Smithson asked if the vehicles will be dual controlled and have dash cams. The Applicant said all those features were critical and will be in place.

Councillor Plummer asked if there was a designated place where the changeover will take place between instructor and the learner.  The Applicant explained this would need the instructor to participate in the conversation as it would be dependent on each student but it would be managed and safe.

Councillor Bennett asked if students will be paying less to get qualified. The Applicant said their organisation has a different funding position and they can access government money to offer free/heavily discounted courses for those who are lower qualified/on benefits which is different to commercial providers. The College is public sector and work with those most in need.

Councillor Deacon asked for clarity that the vehicles be dual control and the Applicant confirmed they will be.

Councillor McCallum asked if the application garnered extra sympathy because they are cheaper courses. The Planning Manager said it gave very limited weight as it was not a direct planning consideration.

The Suffolk County Council Highways Officer was invited to speak. Councillor McCallum asked if there were no logistical problems with training having seen the photographs. The Highways Officer said there were no significant impacts. Councillor Smithson asked if a precedent would be set by allowing this application that would encourage other HGVs to use Charity Lane, especially when there is an advisory sign that Charity Lane was not suitable for HGVs. She asked who managed this and looked at any issues that arose over time. The Highways Officer explained it was an advisory sign and as there were only 6 vehicles going in and out as a result of this planning application it was unlikely other vehicles would notice. This was less than 300m of Charity Lane so just a small area.

The Chair invited Members to debate. Councillor Hedgley agreed with the comments by Councillor McCallum. He felt the Applicant put a good spin on things but an unemployed person can go into a job centre and ask for an HGV training course. Some councils can make contributions to HGV training and Mayors also have funding whilst some logistic firms offer training or you can apply for an advance learner loan towards costs or the Veteran scheme can cover costs. These funding opportunities have existed for a long time. He can’t see how this helps anyone in particular and feels the College just wants to add something to their training that looks good. A lot has been done to get people into HGV training so he was not convinced about this application.

Councillor McCallum said she knows these roads and felt there were other opportunities out there. She wasn’t convinced this was a safe route and that other alternatives could have been sourced. 

Councillor Deacon valued the opportunity for HGV training, especially for those without other qualifications. He pointed out that we have country lanes all over Suffolk and they must take HGVs for residents to exist. However on the site visit he found the lane to be under a great deal of stress just from normal vehicles and he had doubts over the safety. He asked what would happen if the application was refused.

The Planning Manager explained that Members needed to give regard to the benefit of this college offering this training. They could not say if there was enough HGV training but it was not an overprovision and there was no proof that there was not a need. The NPPF says development should only be refused if there was an unacceptable impact that was severe and that is the key test. Highways say there is not a severe impact and this is only a short section of road. The Council would be unlikely to succeed at appeal but he does recognise local feeling about this application.

Councillor Packard said that in planning terms the College has explained how these vehicles will move about and we should encourage this type of training. The College has shown how they will manage this and he supported it.

Councillor Smithson acknowledged the problems with having a shortage of drivers and was not convinced that 12 trips a day would have a significant impact. She was minded to approve even though she found Highway’s approach to roads a little cavalier. She would like there to be more monitoring.

Councillor Thompson said there were a number of places where drivers could train but you need to keep producing trained drivers all the time.

Councillor Hedgley had listened to what had been said and acknowledged the need for more HGV drivers. However there are lots of places available but no-one is taking them up and having them at the College won’t make a big impact on numbers.  There were already 4-5 training providers in the area and if this is approved there will be additional HGVs, damage to roads and increased pollution. He said these roads are not suitable for HGVs and we don’t have to add to something that is already bad. 

The Chair instinctively felt it was wrong but the prospect of people learning something like this in a college environment would be a positive thing and offers something that you don’t get through a commercial route. The intensity of use of 12 movements a day Monday-Friday in office hours brings it into the realms of acceptability. He did see the Parish Council views, but he saw an HGV going down Charity Lane even though there are advisory signs. The negative publicity for the College if it went wrong would be very damaging.

Councillor McCallum said her objection wasn’t about the number of lorries, but the reasoning of being trained on these roads. Not knowing where they will stop to change drivers causes her concern. Having learner drivers on these roads concerned her.

Councillor Plummer pointed out that students were not coming to do a course that was simply learning to drive an HGV and wider learning would go on. The confidence of being in that college environment would be a benefit and gives opportunity. Having 6 journeys a day seems a good balance.

Councillor Reeves would have liked to see the details of the mitigations being put in place as they might answer some of their queries but was likely to support it. He acknowledged that Highways supported it.

On the proposal of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Smithson it was 

RESOLVED

That the application is approved, subject to conditions, including: 

1. Standard 3-year time limit for implementation
2. Approved drawings and documents
3. Lighting design strategy for biodiversity
4. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 
and Newt Survey
5. BNG Plan to accord with the BNG Statement 
6. Construction Management Strategy 
7. Visibility splays
8. Completion of accesses prior to first use
9. All HGV/LGV traffic movements to be in accordance with the submitted Traffic Management 
Statement
10. Standard BNG condition

After a short adjournment the meeting reconvened.

The Committee received report ES/2557 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/21/2503/OUT. The Planning Manager gave a presentation explaining that the application was made in outline, with all matters reserved, save for access, which was detailed in full. He explained the background to the site and highlighted the 2021 application date and that it had been delayed due to some Highways issues. The proposal relates to a site allocated in the Development Plan for housing and comprises up to 41 dwellings served by a new vehicular access from the B1121 / Saxmundham Road. Associated works are detailed within the application.

The Planning Manager showed site plans and site photos including those showing the site access. Members were presented with the plan showing access points and vehicular routes through the site and the right of way on the boundary of the site which would be improved. A map showing the Rights of Way network was shown with the Mill Lane route shown in blue which was a narrow lane with no room for a footway. Photos were shown of the footpath that could be widened and made into a bridleway. 

Members were shown a site map of the entrance into the site with the proposed shared cycle path on Saxmundham Road and tactile crossing points. A new bus stop was proposed but this was not supported due to the negative impact it would have on the adjacent Grade II listed building. There could be a new crossing point to the existing bus stop and there would be offsite Highways works to improve access for pedestrians along Forge Close through conditions but they were limited in what can be achieved due to the nature of the road.

The Planning Manager showed a photo of the verge that Highways say is under their ownership but is contested by residents of Schott’s Meadow. He showed improvements that would be made from the exit from The Beeches although these were limited due to the nature of the road.

He explained that the Parameter Plan with key uses identified would be embedded into the planning permission if approved. He pointed out the swale and pockets of greenery and play space area. They grey areas are where housing would be located and he highlighted the drainage basin next to Schott’s Meadow. Members were shown an indicative housing plan but the final layout would be further scrutinised.

The Planning Managed showed a map of the proposed National Grid Sea Link project and it was noted that the local community was unsettled having multiple things to decide. However it was pointed out that this application site was an allocated site and there was no reason to delay a decision due to other plans that are being consulted on.

He concluded by running through the material considerations and key issues and explained that the amended details of the scheme are acceptable and in compliance with policy, so the application was recommended for approval subject to the conclusion of a s106 Agreement and conditions as summarised in the report.

Councillor Hedgley asked to see map and if the brown area had already been built out, which was confirmed by the Planning Manager.

Councillor Smithson asked about the walking route to school. She asked if you would have to walk in the road and if there was no way of creating a safe route to the school. The Planning Manager explained that the scheme will fill in some missing footways but in some areas, like Mill Lane, it wasn’t possible. He explained that there was a route through Schott’s Meadow but this was a private development and not a public right of way. The best mitigations possible would be put in and there would be an improvement on the current situation.

The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that on small estates there are unadopted roads with connecting pathways. They do become part of the community but the management company could stop access. There could be an application for a right of way in the future. He said other provisions were provided and there are over 270 dwellings in Benhall that were accessing the school without a safe route but they were doing the best they can.

Councillor Reeves asked about the enhanced bridleway and if it would be suitable for cyclists and a double buggy to fit side by side. The Planning Manager explained it would be 3 metres wide and resurfaced. He couldn’t say if they would fit both side by side but the Chair said it was a good width for a shared path.

Councillor Packard asked about the railway line. The Planning Manager said Network Rail have not objected but the railway line would have to be fenced off which was included as a condition of the boundary treatment.

Councillor McCallum asked why planners were using maps and not Google Earth. The Head of Planning and Building Control said Google Earth was not always completely up to date so they have to be careful. He said they would keep to what is included in plans at the moment but advised members to use Google Earth for their meeting preparation.

Councillor Reeves asked about the bus stop next to the Grade II listed building and thought that if people were advised to use the one on the other side of the road this would be going the wrong way. The Planning Manager explained there was already a bus stop by the Grade II listed building but there would be no formal shelter erected as this would detract from the Grade II listed building. There would be an improved road crossing there though. 

The Chair asked about the speed limit. The Planning Manager said it was 40mph on the road that you would exit out of the estate onto and then national speed limit further along.

Councillor Plummer asked about secondary schools. The Head of Planning and Building Control said most went to Leiston and there was bus provision.

The Objector was invited to speak. He lives in Schott’s Meadow and objects on the grounds that the access is not suitable. The access is onto a fast, 40mph main road. He contested that Highways owns the land between the development and the main road and showed a map of the property deeds showing the land owned by residents marked by a red line which included the verge. No lights were proposed on the path which would be very dark. The road was not suitable and it will become even busier as more vehicles will be coming down there. Opening up access through Schott’s Meadow was not something the residents would be open to. He showed a picture of farm machinery accessing the field and asked how this would access the fields beyond the site. The width of access would be reduced and he questioned if this site was appropriate for this many houses.

Councillor Nicholson spoke on behalf of the Parish Council. She explained this was the largest number of houses ever built in Benhall at one time and it needs to be as good as it can be in terms of links with the village. Activities for mental and physical wellbeing are important. They feel that the access route onto the B1121 is awful with a contested verge ownership and a shared path that is too narrow. There were always vehicles parked along the road and vulnerable users will be tangling with vehicles. You wouldn’t let children use this route. It has no benefit to the village but there is a better option by using footpath 26. Instead of a 'nice to have bridleway' this could be the key access to the village. It comes out opposite the primary school and the access point to the new cycling route and gives better access to the village facilities. Therefore they would like to see the main non-vehicular access to be via footpath 26 and the other route could be dropped entirely as it is unsafe. She concluded that they were very confused by the Sea Link and planning applications and wasn’t sure who trumped who.

Councillor McCallum asked if the Parish Council was happy with the development but not the access. Councillor Nicholson said they weren’t entirely happy but accept it is in the Local Plan. Councillor McCallum asked if they had worked with the developer. Councillor Nicholson said no but they would like to. 

The Applicant’s Agent was invited to speak. He said the main consideration is that this is allocated in the Local Plan. There are 12 criteria on what it should deliver and they strongly believe that it delivers on all the points. This has been scrutinised for over 4 years. He explained that they weren’t putting 50 units on the site as per the Local Plan because the site can’t take 50 and it would be an overdevelopment. His family lives in the village and what they have designed will fit into the village like the Schott’s Meadow development. It is policy compliant, there will be 14 affordable homes, sustainable drainage and they have engaged with Highways to provide enhancements. There will be a good housing mix which will be attractive and not over developed. There is capacity at the sewage works and they will be upgrading footpath 26 so it is 3metres wide and resurfaced.

Councillor Smithson asked about tractors going through the site. The Agent said this was a risk. Originally they had looked at accessing the back of the site whilst the front was farmed but now it was the other way around. There will still be a field at the back but this will be dealt with at detailed design stage.

The Chair asked about footpath 26. The Agent explained it was being upgraded so it can be used all year round and it was part of the proposal.

Ward Member Councillor Graham spoke. She explained historically the residents were opposed to the development but they accept that it will go ahead so they want to make sure it is fully integrated and promotes active travel. She said the footpath should be the main access rather than the other proposal on Saxmundham Road, which would not be accessible and was not considered suitable by the disability forum. They would like the footpath improved to a high quality bridleway in consultation with the Parish Council together with maintenance agreements in place for both these active travel schemes. In rural communities bridleways often become unusable. This was a small, rural community that was facing big challenges but they were going to great lengths and the cycling/walking strategy should not be undermined.

The Planning Manager explained that footpath 26 will be upgraded to be 3m wide. The Chair asked him to clarify which section he was talking about. The Planning Manager showed the map and explained that the footpath marked in purple would be made a bridleway. There was nothing to say a resident had to use the access on Saxmundham Road. They might choose to go either way. However there was still the issue with accessing Mill Lane and he showed the route down Mill Lane to the school on google street view. He explained there was no scope to introduce a footway in Mill Lane but this route is already in use by residents and this application will make improvements where they can.

The Head of Planning and Building Control said the cycling/walking/wheeling group has been looking at improvements connecting Benhall to Saxmundham and £400k of CIL will be used to improve this route. This has only been allocated because of the site allocation in the Local Plan. The pavement does help to connect to Saxmundham and without this pavement and crossing points you would have to double back onto Mill Lane. There is some joined up delivery. He confirmed that the verge area B1121 was Highways land.

Councillor Reeves asked if the footpath marked in purple was footpath 26. The Planning Manager said it was and pointed it out on the map. He explained that the section as far as Mill Lane would be upgraded to bridleway standard.

The Chair asked for route clarity on the B1121 and how it linked up with the new CIL funded route cycling/wheeling/walking route to Saxmundham. The Head of Planning and Building Control said it doesn’t connect directly but it is in the Local Plan and offers improvements that do improve and promote active travel. He reminded Members that they also have to meet the housing numbers imposed by Government.

Councillor Reeves asked if there was early years provision at the primary school. The Planning Manager wasn’t sure but believed there was.

Councillor Deacon said as the site is in the Local Plan and the footpath will be hard surfaced and there is access to the school he doesn’t have an issue and would be happy to proposing approval.

Councillor McCallum agreed with Councillor Deacon and would second it.

The Chair said it was an important area for the cycling group. The solution wasn’t ideal and the speed limits and parking issues were still there. Further campaigning needs to be done to make this as safe as possible.

On the proposal of Councillor Deacon, seconded by Councillor McCallum it was unanimously

RESOLVED

 That the application be approved and granted outline planning permission, subject to the conclusion of a S106 Agreement and with conditions as summarised below.

1. Time limits
2. Submission of Reserved Matters / compliance 
3. Reserved Matters detail to be in accordance with approved parameter plans
4. Access approved in accordance with submitted plans/details
5. Details of off-site highway works to be submitted and approved
6. Details of fire hydrants as required by Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service
7. Standard archaeological conditions 
8. Standard suite of ecological conditions
9. Standard land contamination condition(s)
10. Construction Management Plan
11. Highways conditions (to be confirmed via update sheet)
12. Drainage – submission of strategy with RM application
13. Drainage – construction surface water management plan
14. Public right of way – improvements and upgrades; details to be submitted for approval
15. Public right of way – implementation of improvements and upgrades
16. Details of fencing required by Network Rail to be submitted for approval

The Committee received report ES/2558 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/3118/AND. Members received a presentation from the Assistant Planner who explained that the application was for non-illuminated advertising consent for the erection of a wall mounted timber notice board with glass door at the Sizewell Beach Toilet Block. The Assistant Planner showed images of the proposed new noticeboard and a photo of the existing noticeboard. He explained that the application triggered a referral to planning committee as East Suffolk Council was the owner of the building to which the notice board would be installed. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Councillor Reeves asked if it was correct at paragraph 3.1 of the report where it says the size of the noticeboard was 1 x A4 and surely it was much larger. The Assistant Planner confirmed it was 1m by 62cm and thinks this was a typo in the report and should have read A1 not A4.


On the proposal of Councillor Bennett, seconded by Councillor Thompson it was unanimously

RESOLVED

 That Approval is recommended to grant advertisement consent subject to conditions.

 1. All advertisements displayed, and any land used for the display of advertisements, shall be 
maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local 
Planning Authority.
Reason: As required by the Town and Country (Control of Advertisement) Regulations in 
force at this time.
 2. Any hoarding or similar structure, or any sign, placard, board or device erected or used 
principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe 
condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: as required by the Town and Country (Control of Advertisements) Regulations in 
force at this time.
 3. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete 
accordance with the drawings SZC-SZ0100-XX-000-DRW-100738 REV 01 and SZC-SZ0100-
XX-000-DRW-100796 on 12/08/2025. 
Reason: For avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved